Misdiagnosis and uncritical use of plant mycorrhizal data are not the only elephants in the room
Misdiagnosis and uncritical use of plant mycorrhizal data are not the only elephants in the room
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/nph.15976
复制
发表时间：
2019-12-01
期刊：
影响因子：
9.4
通讯作者：
Moora, Mari
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bueno, C. Guillermo;Aldrich-Wolfe, Laura;Moora, Mari
人们越来越感兴趣的是利用植物菌根性状-与植物形成菌根共生的能力相关的特征-来了解菌根在社区，生态系统和地理区域内和跨社区，生态系统和地理区域的作用（Moora，2014; Tedersoo，2017）。最近的研究结合了植物菌根特征，主要是菌根类型（例如外生菌根（ECM），杜鹃花科菌根（ERM），丛枝菌根（AM）和非菌根（NM））和菌根状态（专性菌根（OM）和faculycorrhizal（FM）;例如Correia et al.，2018; Gerz等人，2018），已经从已发表的经验数据中为感兴趣的植物物种分配了性状值。致力于建立和改进经验植物菌根性状的数据库（例如Chaudhary等人，2016年; Alberto等人，Brundrett & Tedersoo（2019）最近的一篇观点文章强调了与将菌根性状分配给植物物种有关的几个挑战，并批评了菌根性状数据库的使用。作者认为，由于两个未被充分认识的问题，使用这种性状数据库（他们称之为“回收数据”）是“不合适的”：数据库（1）可能包括由于错误识别根菌根结构而导致的“菌根性状分配错误”;或者（2）可能包含使用有缺陷的诊断标准得出的数据。相反，他们提出了（1）定义菌根的诊断标准，对相互作用的生物学做出具体假设，以及（2）根据他们的策划列表检查数据库，这些列表来自将菌根性状分配给植物物种的先前经验（以下称为“标准参考”，Brundrett，2009; Tedersoo，2017）。虽然我们完全同意需要标准的实验方案，但如果要在该领域的研究人员中达成共识，Brundrett和Tedersoo的观点提出的几个问题值得认真考虑：（1）最小数量的丛枝是否应该定义AM共生;（2）植物分类学是否准确预测植物菌根性状（即高度系统发育性状保守性）;（3）当已发表的研究结果与本标准或任何拟议的标准参考不匹配时，是否应将其视为“不正确”？
There is increasing interest in using plant mycorrhizal traits–characteristics related to a plant’s ability to form mycorrhizal symbiosis–to understand the role of mycorrhizas within and across communities, ecosystems and biogeographical regions (Moora, 2014; Tedersoo, 2017). Recent studies incorporating plant mycorrhizal traits, mainly mycorrhizal type (eg ecto-mycorrhizal (ECM), ericoid-mycorrhizal (ERM), arbuscular-mycorrhizal (AM), and non-mycorrhizal (NM)) and mycorrhizal status (obligately mycorrhizal (OM) and facultatively mycorrhizal (FM); eg Correia et al., 2018; Gerz et al., 2018), have assigned trait values from published empirical data for plant species of interest. Dedicated efforts to build and improve databases of empirical plant mycorrhizal traits (eg Chaudhary et al., 2016; Bueno et al., 2017) are making these resources increasingly comprehensive, transparent and accessible.A recent Viewpoint article by Brundrett & Tedersoo (2019) highlights several challenges connected with assigning mycorrhizal traits to plant species and criticizes the use of mycorrhizal trait databases. The authors argue that the use of such trait databases (which they refer to as ‘recycled data’) is ‘inappropriate’due to two underappreciated problems: the databases (1) may include ‘mycorrhizal trait allocation errors’ due to misidentification of root mycorrhizal structures; or (2) may contain data derived using diagnostic criteria that are flawed. They propose instead (1) diagnostic criteria for defining mycorrhizas that make specific assumptions about the biology of the interaction, and (2) checking databases against their curated list, derived from prior experience of assigning mycorrhizal traits to plant species (hereafter referred to as a ‘standard reference’, Brundrett, 2009; Tedersoo, 2017). Although we fully agree that standard protocols are required, there are several questions raised by the Brundrett & Tedersoo’s Viewpoint that deserve critical consideration if consensus is to be reached among researchers in the field:(1) should the presence of minimum number of arbuscules define the AM symbiosis;(2) does plant taxonomy accurately predict plant mycorrhizal traits (ie high phylogenetic trait conservatism);(3) should the results of published studies be considered ‘incorrect’when they do not match this, or any proposed,‘standard reference’?